On 11/28/19 8:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <71ad677a-8c88-8916-fe02-7d0d8ae93...@dougbarton.us> you write:
I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have
expressed that we should stay out of ISO's sandbox. Whatever the rules
are today, they can change, and poaching their stuff for our purposes is
bad form (and yes, I feel that poaching is what is being proposed, in
spite of the arguments to the contrary).
I don't see how relying on ISO's advice is poaching. They say:
You, like Ted, are ignoring the fact that ISO can choose to change those
rules.
ICANN has already said that it's not going to ever delegate CORP, HOME,
or MAIL.
They said indefinitely defer which is not the same thing at all.
Ok, so if you think there is a risk here, then it should be mitigated by
working together with ICANN on a draft that codifies that they will
never be delegated. Since there is apparently a need for additional such
names (like INTERNAL) then they should be included.
Other than some sort of gratuitous "we hate ICANN so we don't want to
work with them" thing, it's not at all clear to me why we wouldn't want
to lock the necessary resources down in cooperation with the only other
entity that has anything to say about what happens in the root zone.
The IETF has already decided to stay out of the home/corp/mail
argument
The IETF can change its mind too. :)
Seriously, there is obviously a need to have private-use TLDs that we
can guarantee will never be part of the public root zone. So let's make
that happen, in a way that we can be sure will never be pulled out from
under us.
Doug
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
